RangerDave wrote:
To most people, the ACA, like Medicare and Social Security before it, is just another policy they either agree with or not. To the wingnuts, though, it's the end of all that once was good and free about America. So, you have a handful of wingnuts in the House (and their wingnut supporters in the media and in Republican primaries) holding futile vote after futile vote to repeal, shutting down the government and threatening to default on the country's debts, all to repeal a law whose cost and scope is dwarfed by other related policies that have been around longer than many of the wingnuts have been alive without threatening our way of life.
And on the other side you have wingnuts who think feel that programs to promote perceived "social goods" are involate once passed, and when not yet implemented are the result of nothing but greed, selfishness, and a hatred for.. well, pretty much everyone other than the imaginary club that the opposition belongs to. Supposedly, only fatcat rich men and corporations oppose endless increases in social spending, and taxes to support it, but there is no explanation as to why rural dwellers don't support these things despite frequently being very poor, except "racism", because most rural dwellers are white.
The Republicans have to use tactics like this, or they will never get real debate on Obamacare, which was shoved through in a 100% democrat-controlled government, and that government created entirely by 8 years of the media campaigning against GWB, followed by Obama and the Democrats running against him rather than John McCain or their respective state/district opponents.
The fact is that the House of Representatives is at least trying to do its Constitutional job here (however clumsily) by
holding onto the purse strings. This is exactly the reason why the House is where funding bills must originate; to check a President and Senate between whom there is no meaningful debate or disagreement, as the Senate is where the officers that implement policy are confirmed - without consultation by the House. The obstinacy here is at least as much a product of the Senate's/Democrats belief that Obamacare is somehow a special law that is immune from reconsideration. This is how we've ended up with the asinine policy of "mandatory spending" - by creating the idea that certain laws, once passed, are immune from debate or change.